APHC010197842021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 666/2021 Between: B Venkatesulu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Shriram Raghavendra Chits Pvt Lts and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.666 of 2021 O R D E R: The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 31.03.2021 in E.P.No.85 of 2018 in D.R.A.No.133 of 2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. 2. Petitioners//Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are judgment debtors. Respondent No.1 is a Chit Fund company and as the Petitioners defaulted in paying the chit amount, the Respondent No.1 had raised a dispute No.DRA/CFS/133/2016 before the Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ananthapuramu. An award was passed on 17.05.2017 directing the Petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,45,800/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.4,40,000/- i.e. from date of filing of ‘dispute’ till realization and with costs of Rs.13,060/-. 3. As the Petitioners/Respondent Nos.2 to 5 did not comply with the Award passed, E.P.No.85 of 2018 was filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu seeking for attachment of their monthly salary for realization of the decretal amount. 4. The Petitioners/Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed their counter disputing their signatures on the agreements and that they never stood as guarantors to Respondent No.1 therein/Respondent No.2 3 herein. The trial Court rejected the objection and allowed the E.P. by attaching a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month each from the salaries of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the Respondents were directing to send the amount by way of DD till realization of E.P. amount. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 6. This Court on 07.07.2021 passed interim stay of the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Award was passed by the Deputy Registrar and the consequential recovery certificate under Section 71(a) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) is not sustainable as the Act contemplates award to be passed only by the ‘Registrar of Chits”. In support of the contention, learned counsel cited a judgment of this Court in Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao and another v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited and others1. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that the definition of “Registrar” under Section 2(o) of the Act includes Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar. It was contended that notifications were issued by the Government empowering the Deputy 1 (2017) 3 ALD 387 (DB) 4 Registrar of Chits to pass orders to discharge the duties of “Registrar” under the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.1472 Revenue (Regn.II) Department dated 10.12.2008. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited 2, wherein it was specifically held that the judgment cited by the counsel for the Petitioners cannot be taken as an authoritative pronouncement on the said question. 10. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that primary reference should be made to Section 2(o) of the Act. The said Section defines the term “Registrar” and as per the definition, an Additional, a Joint, Deputy or an Assistant Registrar appointed under Section 61 of the Act was also included within the definition of the “Registrar”. 11. In this case, the Government of A.P. had issued a notification vide G.O.Ms.No.1472 dated 10.12.2008 empowering the Deputy Registrar among others to exercise duties imposed upon a Registrar under the Act. Once the Government has appointed the Deputy Registrar of Chits and Assistant Registrar of Chits to exercise specific duties of the ‘Registrar’ under the Act, the plea of the Petitioners cannot be sustained. 2 2018 SCC Only Hyd 2210 5 12. This Court in Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (1 supra) was not informed about G.O.Ms.No.1472 dated 10.12.2008. However, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Madamanchi Anil Kumar’s case (2 supra) considered the said G.O. as well as the definition of “Registrar” under Section 2(o) of the Act as well as other provisions and Rules and held that the award and recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar is valid in consonance with the Act. The paragraphs 17 to 22 of the said judgment are extracted below for ready reference: “17. Unfortunately, the Division Bench in paragraph 18 of the report in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao has mistaken the power of nomination available to the Registrar under Section 66 (1) to be a power of delegation. The meaning to be assigned to the word “Registrar” appearing in Rule 55 (3), was not considered by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao. 18. Rule 55 (3) of the Rules reads as follows: “(3) On receipt of such application for execution, the Registrar shall forward the same to the proper authority for execution along with a certificate issued by him under section 71 of the said Act and a proclamation issued under rule 54 in the manner prescribed therein.” 19. The Chit Fund Rules, 2008 do not define the word “Registrar”. The definition part of the Rules contains only five words and expressions. After defining five words and expressions in Rule 2, it is stated in Rule 2 itself that the words and expressions not defined in the Rules shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Act. Therefore, the word 6 “Registrar” appearing in Rule 55 (3) has to be interpreted in the same manner as is defined in Section 2 (o) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. If this is done, it will be clear that any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar to whom a delegation has been made under Section 61 (1) will be entitled under Rule 55 (3) to issue a certificate of recovery. If the Government, by a notification in the official Gazette, issued under section 61(1), can appoint a Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar to perform all the duties of the post of Registrar, he becomes empowered automatically to issue a certificate of recovery under rule 55 also. The expression used in section 61 (1) is “all the duties”. 20. Unfortunately,--- (i) the distinction between delegation under Section 61 (1) and nomination under Section 66 (1); (ii) the definition of the expression “Registrar” under Section 2 (o); (iii) the interpretation to be given to the word “Registrar” in Rule 55 (3) read with the definition clause in Rule 2 of the Rules; and (iv) the availability of the Gazette notifications containing delegation of powers, were all not placed before the Division Bench, which decided Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao decision in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao cannot be taken to be an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to who is competent to issue a certificate of recovery. 21. Section 71 of the Act deals with the procedure for recovery of money. It reads as follows: “71. Money how recovered.—Every order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 68 or section 69 and every order passed by the State Government in appeal under section 70 for payment of any money shall, if not carried out, — (a) on a certificate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree 7 of a civil court, and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court, or (b) be executed in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force for the recovery of amounts as arrears of land revenue: Provided that no application for execution under clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date fixed in the order, and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order.” 22. Clause (a) of Section 71 speaks about a certificate issued by the Registrar. The word “Registrar” appearing in Section 71 (a) has also to be given the same meaning as found in Section 2 (o). Therefore, we hold that if any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar has been appointed by the State Government, by a notification in the official gazette, to perform all the duties dischargeable by the Registrar under the Act, then such a delegate will be competent to issue a certificate of recovery. It is not correct to say that the Registrar of Chits alone is competent to issue a certificate of recovery.” 12. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.01.2025 KLP